An executive at Rovio Mobile, the developer of the best-selling iPhone game "Angry Birds," said that Apple will be the number one platform for developers for a long time, calling the Android ecosystem fragmented.

Since its release in December 2009, Rovio Mobile's "Angry Birds" iPhone game has become a global phenomenon. The game had a slow start, but eventually took off, reaching 50 million downloads across platforms. According to Vesterbacka, "Angry Birds" has remained at number one on Apple's App Store "longer than anybody else."

The game's characters have become so iconic that some Wall Street analysts have begun using the birds as a symbol for the burgeoning profitability of the mobile app market.

When asked how he viewed "the various mobile OSes in regard to the future of mobile technology," Vesterbacka replied, Apple will be the number one platform for a long time from a developer perspective, they have gotten so many things right. And they know what they are doing and they call the shots."

Moving on to Android, Vesterbacka stated that Android's fragmentation problems are not a device issue, but an ecosystem one. "Android is growing, but its also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem," he said.

With many different shops, many different models and "the carriers messing with the experience again," Android is becoming chaotic for Vesterbacka, who called it "open, but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem."

In November, Rovio apologized for problems with the release of "Angry Birds" on Google's Android mobile OS. "Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance," the company said.

Rovio released the Android version of "Angry Birds" as a free ad-based app ealier this year, calling it "the Google way." According to Vesterbacka, "paid content just doesnt work on Android."

During the interview, Vesterbacka agreed with recent comments from Apple CEO Steve Jobs about development difficulties on Android. "Steve is absolutely right when he says that there are more challenges for developers when working with Android," he said.

According to Vesterbacka, developers will eventually figure out how to work within the Android ecosystem, but "nobody else will be able to build what Apple has built, there just isn't that kind of market power out there."

Vesterbacka said "paid content just doesn’t work on Android." And that is no surprise at all. Google wants it that way.

Android, the software, is free. The software isn't Google's product. Its users' eyeballs on ads and clickthroughs to their advertisers' products are what Google is selling. That's Google's business model, plain and simple.

A buddy of mine showed me the Angry Birds game on his new Galaxy S and it was pretty impressive. He said he had paid for the game on the iPhone but was happy to get it for free on the Galaxy S. I wondered why that was. Now we know.

Even with all the fragmentation I think Android is doing quite well in the apps department. That said I think apps available for both platforms always have a better UI in the iOS version, but oftentimes a bigger feature set in the android one. More features a better ecosystem do not make, but may be attractive to some users.

As was the case with Windows I think a lot more variety and functionality will be cranked out on the Android place, with a lot of piracy, bad UI and the like. iOS will have a great UI, innovative apps and people will actually pay and support the developers, but new functionality will have to wait for UI to catch up and make it simple, as well as approval from the top.

i am a small (very, very, very small) developer. It has been incredibly easy to develop for the iOS, and without any plugging of my apps, any external advertising, etc. I have managed to make money on app store. Not enough to quit my day job, but enough. If it runs in the simulator, it works.

I worked with a friend of mine who wanted to put one of my apps on Android. The amount of effort needed to just get a half- useful looking UI astonished me. The simulator was absolutely pathetic in terms of execution speed. And, the first phone we tried the app on failed, because it didn't properly support Bonjour networking (driver issue for that brand of phone).

It was just awful, and I wouldn't try it again. Some of the rules you have to follow due to the fact that the memory card is removable make the work you have to do kind of silly, for example.

None of this will slow the proliferation of Android devices, of course. Because the carriers don't care about any of this - they just want your two year (or whatever) contract. They don't want a consistent experience - they want "their" experience. They don't want you using the phone doing games, which might cause data usage on their network... they want you to just make phone calls, and to shut up and pay too much for texting.

Android will be a success because Windows Mobile (prior to 7) sucks, they don't like RIM lock-in, and they don't like Apple lock-in. But that doesn't make it "good". It just makes it "passable".

What I think it *does* mean, however, is that the development community will coalesce around iOS, because the work is easier, and there is an actual chance you can get paid.

Now we await the posters who claim its a lie and how iOS is crap. to chime in.

Why doesn't it "bode well"? Android is not iOS, it is poised to be totally different. As the dev said, it's about "google's way", and that is ads. The real question is, how much are these ads worth? 10 cents per download? 1 cent? 50? I don't have a clue.

If the difference between the iOS price that devs can put on the iDevices and the ads revenue that devs can cope in android is too much, android must compensate in sheer numbers.

It probably will, in due course. iPhone will always remain in the top market, but the market will expand outrageously to the bottom, with 80 bucks android phones without subsidies next year. This means that dumbphones will be substituted by these 80 bucks smartphones. The iPhone will be left at the top (where it enjoys being), and android will be the biggest share os.

So Angry Birds, for instance, can probably have much more eyeballs in android in 2011 or 2012 than individual buys on the iPhone and / or iPod.

Either way, this shows that the first OS that devs will invest in is iOS, and android will always be the second choice, at least for the next one two years. But android will have most apps that appear in iOS. This because it is much more hard work to come up with the app itself than porting to android (and for the extra eyeballs, it is worthy).

The developers know where the money can be made. Those that develop for Apple
IOS might develope on Android if they thought there was money to be made. However as mentioned free Apps don't make money and Android is not the place to be for developers.

The chief problem is Android Market only supports paid apps in 32 countries, compared to the App stores 90, and I think this is Rovios main complaint. If you go the paid route, there are customers willing to buy but are unable to, meaning you have to take sell to them via other channels. Not to mention the rare sporadic problems with purchasing/installing apps.

So theres nothing inherently wrong with paid apps on Android, just that Google need to pick up the slack with the Market. Both Tweetdeck and now Rovio have stated that device fragmentation is manageable.

"Though both models generate revenue, the ad-based model is preferable to the paid app model, according to Rovio.One deciding factor is updates which are necessary to keep fans nterested in the game. With iOS, updates are available for free to those who already purchased this app. All revenue for Rovio is generated on this first purchase only. With Android, revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game from the original version and through all future updates advertising is present. revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game"

Android may well be an ugly duckling, but don't delude yourself that it isn't and won't increasingly be an attractive platform for deveopers.

The chief problem is Android Market only supports paid apps in 32 countries, compared to the App stores 90, and I think this is Rovios main complaint. If you go the paid route, there are customers willing to buy but are unable to, meaning you have to take sell to them via other channels. Not to mention the rare sporadic problems with purchasing/installing apps.

So theres nothing inherently wrong with paid apps on Android, just that Google need to pick up the slack with the Market. Both Tweetdeck and now Rovio have stated that device fragmentation is manageable.

If somebody is buying a $250 phone (w/o contract) or under a BOGO offer they are not gonna pay more than $1 for a game, especially if they are not sure if the app/game runs on their budget devices well. Just my two cents.

"Though both models generate revenue, the ad-based model is preferable to the paid app model, according to Rovio.One deciding factor is updates which are necessary to keep fans nterested in the game. With iOS, updates are available for free to those who already purchased this app. All revenue for Rovio is generated on this first purchase only. With Android, revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game from the original version and through all future updates advertising is present. revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game"

Android may well be an ugly duckling, but don't delude yourself that it isn't and won't increasingly be an attractive platform for deveopers.

I agree with what you're saying, especially that ads can make money for a developer. However, there are only so many apps that can garner the eyeballs on a consistent basis, and goes with out saying (but I will), that there are only so many hours in a day.

I'm curious as to how many developers will be able to make this kind of money, and for how long before "the next must-have game/app" comes along and bites into their cake. Albeit, that cake is gonna be pretty damn big. Just sayin'.

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member

Smartphones before iPhone:
-What you buy is what you get, nothing more. If a new version of the OS comes out, you have to buy a newer handset/extend your contract (Symbian, Winmo, etc)
-US carriers are in complete control on the software (crapware, no updates, etc). Not the OEM, not the software maker. Want that new phone with newer version of the OS? Well, extend you contract please.

Then Apple came in with the iPhone where:
-Apple, not the carriers, is the one in control of the OS.
-You get OS updates for at least the next version or two of the OS, straight from Apple.

US carriers were freaking out. They fear that if Apple set the trend, they will lost control of the handsets, and *gasps*, might have to compete by actually providing good service. This would've turned the US wireless market upside down. But voila, Google stepped in and rescued the carriers by giving them Android, for free!

With Android:
-Carriers are back in control of the handset's software.
-What you buy is generally what you get. Providing free OS update to old phones doesn't benefit the carriers nor the OEMs. Carriers want you to keep extending your contracts, and OEMs want to keep selling new handsets.

There you go. Thank you so much to Google for keeping the US wireless market stuck in the stone age where everything is back to the way it was, carrier controlled phones. Oh, and now Google is sleeping with Verizon and threw net neutrality under the bus. Again, good job Google! Oh I'm sure the fanboys love them so much that they keep supporting carrier controlled phones and defend the carriers.

Smartphones before iPhone:
-What you buy is what you get, nothing more. If a new version of the OS comes out, you have to buy a newer handset/extend your contract (Symbian, Winmo, etc)
-US carriers are in complete control on the software (crapware, no updates, etc). Not the OEM, not the software maker. Want that new phone with newer version of the OS? Well, extend you contract please.

Then Apple came in with the iPhone where:
-Apple, not the carriers, is the one in control of the OS.
-You get OS updates for at least the next version or two of the OS, straight from Apple.

US carriers were freaking out. They fear that if Apple set the trend, they will lost control of the handsets, and *gasps*, might have to compete by actually providing good service. This would've turned the US wireless market upside down. But voila, Google stepped in and rescued the carriers by giving them Android, for free!

With Android:
-Carriers are back in control of the handset's software.
-What you buy is generally what you get. Providing free OS update to old phones doesn't benefit the carriers nor the OEMs. Carriers want you to keep extending your contracts, and OEMs want to keep selling new handsets.

There you go. Thank you so much to Google for keeping the US wireless market stuck in the stone age where everything is back to the way it was, carrier controlled phones. Oh, and now Google is sleeping with Verizon and threw net neutrality under the bus. Again, good job Google! Oh I'm sure the fanboys love them so much that they keep supporting carrier controlled phones and defend the carriers.

Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.

Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof

Vesterbacka said "paid content just doesnt work on Android." And that is no surprise at all. Google wants it that way.

Android, the software, is free. The software isn't Google's product. Its users' eyeballs on ads and clickthroughs to their advertisers' products are what Google is selling. That's Google's business model, plain and simple.

You know, you're right. But the problem with developing on the Microsoft Windows 7 Platform is all those pesky developers developers developers developers developers developers!

Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.

Well in one big way. The phone gets new features for 2-3 years after you purchased it.

If somebody is buying a $250 phone (w/o contract) or under a BOGO offer they are not gonna pay more than $1 for a game, especially if they are not sure if the app/game runs on their budget devices well. Just my two cents.

True, true. These Are the type of people that probably won't even use picture messaging capabilities but once every 3 months.

Bogo and Free phone customers are generally very cost-conciencious, and they find it difficult to find the value in value-added services-- data plan fees or similar. Or if they do have the services, the likelihood of removing the service before the end of contract seems higher.

But at the end of the day, I have to wonder if were doing a grave disservice to humanity in general by qualifying cheapskates to $90/mo rate plans so they can get a game with flying birds. Shouldn't they get back to work so they can afford the $200 iPhone with it?

Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.

The argument of being in "control" has been beaten like a rented mule.

The reason users enjoy the iPhone is that they don't mind (or don't care) about relinquishing low-level control to Apple. iPhone users have better things to do than to have absolute control and micromanage everything about their smartphone. They don't want to have to worry about whether an app is malicious. I for one am relieved that a company like Apple is undertaking a herculean effort to remove as much of the mundane tasks from their users. They recognize the joe-consumer does not want to be a sys-admin in order to work their handsets.

The reason Android users enjoy their phone is because they do have absolute control of their handset, presuming they are proficient enough to root it, and continue installing whatever Android OS updates come along. Android is geek nirvana, hence the Terminator-like commercials.

The problem is that the manufacturers of Android handsets and the wireless providers have ZERO incentive to continue providing 6-month-old handsets with updated OS upgrades. Manufacturers only make money on new handsets. Wireless folks want to sell a new phone to lock the users into another contract. Only the technically-proficient have the time to waste figuring a way around it. For everyone else, they simply buy a new handset, or attempt to do an over-the-air update for those few handsets that allow it and the result is they ruin their phone due to lousy firmware. The tech-tards lambast regular users as being too stupid for their inability to figure out their phones on a technical level, when the reality is they simply do not want to deal with it.

Keep up the good work Apple. Thank goodness that there are more "regular" users than the technical ones that think they know better what everyone else wants.

"the revenue distribution isnt flat, so the big winners will make a lot of money and most apps will probably make next to nothing, suggesting that most apps as a business venture would actually lose money"

Angry Birds made $8m in revenue alone. If the top 200 apps receive similar amounts, there's your $1b and not much for the other 300,000+ apps.

Apple has certainly done a lot of things right and no one else has any better implementation but to make it fair for all developers to be judged by their work and not by how people have found the app, Apple should improve discoverability.

Good point, but a couple of other things should be considered. If 300,000 apps is a fact, how many devs are there? I doubt it's 300,000. I also doubt that you could say the top 200 apps generated revenue the way that Angry Birds did.

If the 80/20 rule applies to this scenario, and I'm not saying that it does, of the 300,000 apps, 20%, or 60,000 are generating 80%, or $800 million in revenue. Of course it won't be a flat lined division of the $800 million between 60,000 apps, but this isn't really even the issue we're trying to get to. Developers are not locked into producing just one app - they can have two, twenty, two hundred, two thousand, etc. There are going to be some developers who have multiple successful (and maybe even wildly successful) apps generating big numbers, but others doing very little - again following the typical 80/20 rule (if it plays out this way).

I'm not sure it really matters which platform/os they're writing for - good apps that get more eyeballs on them have a better shot of making money, but following the 80/20 scenario - they'll have just a few apps generating most of the revenue and the remainder doing little or costing them money - again regardless of the platform/os.

I've always thought of Apple vs Android as being similar to the Target vs Walmart comparison. They both sell many of the same basic items (in some cases even the same brands), but the user experience at Target has generally been accepted as the better experience. Part of that is design centric, but Target is also targeting a different audience than Walmart is - not better or worse, but different. I've sold product to both places and there are benefits to both. I believe the same is true for the Apple/Android os businesses.

John

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

I highlighted why that sort of thing happens a little while ago and why it doesn't really show the App Store as the right way of doing things:

"the revenue distribution isnt flat, so the big winners will make a lot of money and most apps will probably make next to nothing, suggesting that most apps as a business venture would actually lose money"

Angry Birds made $8m in revenue alone. If the top 200 apps receive similar amounts, there's your $1b and not much for the other 300,000+ apps.

Apple has certainly done a lot of things right and no one else has any better implementation but to make it fair for all developers to be judged by their work and not by how people have found the app, Apple should improve discoverability.

If somebody is buying a $250 phone (w/o contract) or under a BOGO offer they are not gonna pay more than $1 for a game, especially if they are not sure if the app/game runs on their budget devices well. Just my two cents.

Where I'm from, iPhone doesn't cost any more than any other smart phone.

The argument of being in "control" has been beaten like a rented mule.

The reason users enjoy the iPhone is that they don't mind (or don't care) about relinquishing low-level control to Apple. iPhone users have better things to do than to have absolute control and micromanage everything about their smartphone. They don't want to have to worry about whether an app is malicious. I for one am relieved that a company like Apple is undertaking a herculean effort to remove as much of the mundane tasks from their users. They recognize the joe-consumer does not want to be a sys-admin in order to work their handsets.

The reason Android users enjoy their phone is because they do have absolute control of their handset, presuming they are proficient enough to root it, and continue installing whatever Android OS updates come along. Android is geek nirvana, hence the Terminator-like commercials.

The problem is that the manufacturers of Android handsets and the wireless providers have ZERO incentive to continue providing 6-month-old handsets with updated OS upgrades. Manufacturers only make money on new handsets. Wireless folks want to sell a new phone to lock the users into another contract. Only the technically-proficient have the time to waste figuring a way around it. For everyone else, they simply buy a new handset, or attempt to do an over-the-air update for those few handsets that allow it and the result is they ruin their phone due to lousy firmware. The tech-tards lambast regular users as being too stupid for their inability to figure out their phones on a technical level, when the reality is they simply do not want to deal with it.

Keep up the good work Apple. Thank goodness that there are more "regular" users than the technical ones that think they know better what everyone else wants.

If you're going to discuss "regular" phone users, you should at least get the description right. Most regular users don't care or expect their phone to have OS updates. They're not sitting around wondering whether the apps in their phone's respective app store is malicious or not. Really, they expect their phone to stay the same until their two years are up and they get a new phone.

There are 5 Android users in my family: Two nieces (around 14 and 17 in age), my nephew (age 19), and my brother (44) and his wife (44). The closest to a tech geek in that group is my nephew and I'm not even sure if he would understand what "rooting" the phone is for or how to do it. He's the only one I could imagine waiting anxiously for an OS update. I don't think any of those people have the same phone, yet all of them have no issues using them or acquiring apps. And I know it will come as a shock but they all seem to enjoy their phones.

There are tech geeks on both the Android and iPhone side of the fence. But those aren't the "regular" users of the phones.

Good point, but a couple of other things should be considered. If 300,000 apps is a fact, how many devs are there? I doubt it's 300,000. I also doubt that you could say the top 200 apps generated revenue the way that Angry Birds did.

That's right, there aren't 300k developers but there are still over 43,000 developers:

Even if 1,000 of them make a good amount from their apps, that's still leaving 42,000 developers out in the cold and some of them have great apps.

There was a set of data for a particular app online based on chart ranking and I made a graph of it here:

It's quite a steep fall-off as you get to position 70. Although the two factors go hand-in-hand which is why it's hard to draw conclusions form it and explains why it's an exponential curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmgregory1

good apps that get more eyeballs on them have a better shot of making money

The problem with that statement is 'good apps'. Apps don't have to be good to get more eyeballs. It's the same with movie theatres. Would anyone ever say that Avatar or Titanic were the best movies of all time? Probably not but they are the two highest grossing films of all time from the same director.

Apps get up the rank through publicity. For the publisher in the link in my last post, it was hitting an Italian market, which boosted the sales up a bit and then as soon as it got onto the front page, it sky-rocketed. This is how most ranking systems work including Google. If you appear anywhere after page 3 for certain keywords, your website will get next to no new visitors from that source.

I don't have the time to browse page by page through 50 lists of icons to see apps on the App Store and I can't tell the App Store the kinds of apps I want so I'm never going to find good apps. Plus I can't browse by rating so I can't filter out the junk. My App Store browsing is now once every couple of months and I just search for EA Games or Gameloft and that's it.

Occasionally you get big publishers making games like Chinatown Wars and Tomb Raider and the Guardian of Light, which are big franchises but how do they knock down apps that have been in the chart so long when they are taking all the publicity every single day? It's obvious to me why Angry Birds has stayed at number 1 for so long and it's because it's been at number 1 for so long. Then it gets blogged about everywhere and people read the blogs and buy it and it stays at number 1.

Like I said in the other thread, I think they need to put a time dampener on the charts so that the longer an app is in the charts, it acts as a detriment to its position. If people keep buying in such high volume that it counters this dampening then it deserves its place, otherwise a good deal of its popularity is because of its place in the chart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Right on.

Not strictly true. The free version of Angry Birds for Android is ad-supported and on track to make $1m of revenue vs $8m on iOS, which I think has both and has had the app longer. I'd agree that you are likely to make less money on a popular app ad-supported but you could easily make more money from the ad-supported route.

Indeed, over 200,000 Apps have been written for Android. ISTM that many, many developers think that the viewpoint expressed above is naive. Instead, they realize that Android is THE place to be for developers.

Do you know something that hundreds of thousands of developers, including multibillion dollar powerhouses, don't realize?

Actually, I am an Android developer according to the fact I signed up and downloaded the dev kit, do I plan to ever develop an app for it, nope. How many active developers are there, that is the question. Even better Question is how many developers actually published an app that is more than a skinned web page.

If somebody is buying a $250 phone (w/o contract) or under a BOGO offer they are not gonna pay more than $1 for a game, especially if they are not sure if the app/game runs on their budget devices well. Just my two cents.

There's no inherent correlation between the price of the phone and what a user would be willing to spend on apps. The simple fact is that Android handset manufacturers *can* sell devices at a much lower profit margin than Apple (or at least than Apple is willing to). If Apple sold iPhones two for the price of one, or gave them away for free through promotions, would you turn it down? Certainly not.

I had an iPhone for 2 years, which I paid full price for ($200 with contract I think). I now have an Android that I picked up on promotion for $0 with a 2 year contract. There's no difference between my likelihood of purchasing apps on Android than there was on the iPhone.

Android may, in fact, be a more difficult platform to develop for, but the user base will be larger, if it's not already, and the development tools and resources will improve, and both of these facts will make Android an increasingly attractive platform for developers.

You can dream up all sorts of reasons why developers will shun Android, but that doesn't mean they will.

Well I think everyone or nearly everyone would agree that 750 per year isn't a "good amount of money".

It my be acceptable for you considering the time and effort it took, but no one is making a living off that amount of income.

True, but "good amount of money" being equivalent to "making a living" is your definition, not mine. To me, $750 means a little extra to spend on the family and a bump up in our savings.

The point I was going for is that the Apple Ecosystem (both development and devices) enables non-professionals a low entry point to create and release applications.

For every "Angry Birds", there are a number of non-professional developers who put together useful applications with little effort. They will never break the top 10 (or top 10000) lists, but by making it easy to earn money (even small amounts), it encourages a larger community of active "developers" and hence, a more robust App Store. Case in point, the App Store has my app, while the Android Marketplace does not.

Vesterbacka said "paid content just doesnt work on Android." And that is no surprise at all. Google wants it that way.

Android, the software, is free. The software isn't Google's product. Its users' eyeballs on ads and clickthroughs to their advertisers' products are what Google is selling. That's Google's business model, plain and simple.

That's right. Over 90% of Google revenue comes from a highly proprietary, completely closed system known as Google AdWords.

The only thing I would disagree with here - I totally agree as a developer that iOS is far better than Android - is whether ads are better than money upfront or not. I imagine for most companies, and products, it isn't. however for the top companies it may be. The question is how many ads have to be displayed or clicked to make up the 70% of a $0.99 app, and how likely are you to get such clickthrough or views. This isnt a rhetorical question. I dont actually know.

What I do know is that i have spent $0.99 ( or more) on apps which I rarely use, and the same on apps I use everyday - like twitter, weather apps, transport [London tube and buses] apps, and so on. Not so much angry birds. which I got bored with, or cut the rope which i got stuck on ( Games for that reason are not the best model for advertising, unless they dumb down).

Continuous revenue is nice too - rather than a blip on release of your game and a drop thereafter, advertising revenue will increase as the game continues to sell and be used.

So there will be a market for ads related apps on the iPhone or Android, for apps that have daily use. However most the money is in paid apps. For games it makes less sense.

I had an iPhone for 2 years, which I paid full price for ($200 with contract I think). I now have an Android that I picked up on promotion for $0 with a 2 year contract. There's no difference between my likelihood of purchasing apps on Android than there was on the iPhone.

That , my friend is an anecdote, not a statistic. For a lot of people a $0 phone is a phone, not a device to use apps. The fact that you came from the iPhone market means you were used to the app world. A consumer who walks into CarPhone Warehouse and gets a free phone - which happens to be Android - may not, and probably will not - buy apps. She, or he, just got a phone. I even know of iPhone users with little use for apps, other than those installed.

Quote:

Android may, in fact, be a more difficult platform to develop for, but the user base will be larger, if it's not already, and the development tools and resources will improve, and both of these facts will make Android an increasingly attractive platform for developers

You can dream up all sorts of reasons why developers will shun Android, but that doesn't mean they will.

I dont agree that Android will overtake iOS - and no it hasnt already ( the iOS platform includes the iPad and the iPod touch) - but we are not "dreaming" anything here. A developer of the MOST SUCCESSFUL app in the history of mobile apps has said that iOS will be dominant for years.

Let's see. Angry birds on iOS has about 15 million downloads....I don't know how many paid versions vs lite versions are installed on iOS devices. 99 cents a pop. Android has over 30 million downloads.....all ad supported. I am curious which platform has made more money.

I am not a developer, but I wouldn't ever code for Android since there is no good way to monetize a product that I spent time on.

I disagree that iOS will be number 1 for a long time. Android will take over marketshare, but Apple will never be a small player. Those two are going to be top two for a very long time.